Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 775–792 | Cite as

Abusive Supervision, Psychological Distress, and Silence: The Effects of Gender Dissimilarity Between Supervisors and Subordinates

  • Joon Hyung Park
  • Min Z. Carter
  • Richard S. DeFrank
  • Qianwen Deng
Original Paper

Abstract

Previous research has shed light on the detrimental effects of abusive supervision. To extend this area of research, we draw upon conservation of resources theory to propose (a) a causal relationship between abusive supervision and psychological distress, (b) a mediating role of psychological distress on the relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence, and (c) a moderating effect of the supervisor–subordinate relational context (i.e., gender dissimilarity) on the mediating effect of abusive supervision on silence. Through an experimental study (Study 1), we found the causal path linking abusive supervision and psychological distress. Results of both the experimental study and a field study (Study 2) provided evidence that psychological distress mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and silence. Lastly, we found support that this mediation effect was contingent upon the relational context in Study 2 but not in Study 1. We discuss implications for theory and practice.

Keywords

Abusive supervision Psychological distress Gender dissimilarity Silence 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Study 1: The research project has been reviewed according to the ethical review processes in place in the University of Nottingham Ningbo. These processes are governed by the University’s Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics. Any questions regarding human rights as a research subject may be addressed to UNNC Research Ethics Sub-Committee Coordinator: Joanna.Huang@nottingham.edu.cn. Please refer to http://www.nottingham.edu.cn/en/research/researchethics/unnc-research-code-of-conduct.aspx. An anonymous online-based questionnaire was distributed to the participants and the data was treated anonymously and confidentially. The participant information sheet was shown to them and they were asked to choose “agree” or “disagree” button to participate in the survey. Study 2: The research project has been reviewed according to the ethical review processes in place in the University of Houston. These processes are governed by the University of Houston committee for the protection of human subjects. Any questions regarding human rights as a research subject may be addressed to the University of Houston committee for the protection of human subjects (713-743-9204). Please refer to http://www.uh.edu/research/compliance/irb-cphs/. Informed consent was obtained from individual participants who completed the paper survey. Some participants preferred an online version of the survey. The data was treated anonymously and confidentially. Informed consent was shown to them and they were asked to choose “agree” or “disagree” button to participate in the survey.

References

  1. Afridi, F., Li, S. X., & Ren, Y. (2015). Social identity and inequality: The impact of China’s hukou system. Journal of Public Economics, 123, 17–29.Google Scholar
  2. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191–201.Google Scholar
  3. Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175–202). Bingley, England: Emerald.Google Scholar
  4. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.Google Scholar
  5. Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Leadership in the Asian century: Lessons from GLOBE. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 5(3), 150–163.Google Scholar
  6. Avery, D. R., Wang, M., Volpone, S. D., & Zhou, L. (2013). Different strokes for different folks: The impact of sex dissimilarity in the empowerment–performance relationship. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 757–784.Google Scholar
  7. Avey, J. B., Wu, K., & Holley, E. (2014). The influence of abusive supervision and job embeddedness on citizenship and deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 721–731.Google Scholar
  8. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  9. Carter, M. Z., Mossholder, K. W., Feild, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2014). Transformational leadership, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of supervisor–subordinate racial and gender dissimilarity. Group and Organization Management, 39(6), 691–719.Google Scholar
  10. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 143–159.Google Scholar
  11. Chan, M. L. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 44–66.Google Scholar
  12. Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2016). Gesture in experimental studies: How videotape technology can advance psychological theory. Organizational Research Methods. doi: 10.1177/1094428116654548.Google Scholar
  13. Derogatis, L. R. (1993). BSI brief symptom inventory. Administration, scoring, and procedures manual (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.Google Scholar
  14. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  16. Farh, C. I. C., & Chen, Z. (2014). Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1074–1095.Google Scholar
  17. Ferris, D. L., Yan, M., Lim, V., Chen, Y., & Fatimah, S. (2016). An approach/avoidance framework of workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1777–1800.Google Scholar
  18. Foley, S., Linnehan, F., Greenhaus, J. H., & Weer, C. H. (2006). The impact of gender similarity, racial similarity, and work culture on family-supportive supervision. Group and Organization Management, 31(4), 420–441.Google Scholar
  19. Fried, Y., Rowland, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1984). The physiological measurement of work stress: A critique. Personnel Psychology, 37(4), 583–615.Google Scholar
  20. Gonzales, M. H., Haugen, J. A., & Manning, D. J. (1994). Victims as “narrative critics”: Factors influencing rejoinders and evaluative responses to offenders’ accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 691–704.Google Scholar
  21. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in Conservation of Resources Theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.Google Scholar
  22. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 252–263.Google Scholar
  23. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.Google Scholar
  24. Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resource theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 57–80). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  25. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 175–201.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, A. E. (2009). Global migration and South Korea: Foreign workers, foreign brides and the making of a multicultural society. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(1), 70–92.Google Scholar
  28. Kim, S. L., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2015). Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support: A social exchange perspective. Group and Organization Management, 40(5), 599–624.Google Scholar
  29. Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2015). The effect of coworker knowledge sharing on performance and its boundary conditions: An interactional Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 575–582.Google Scholar
  30. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163–193.Google Scholar
  31. Klapper, A., Dotsch, R., van Rooij, I., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2016). Do we spontaneously form stable trustworthiness impressions from facial appearance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 655–664.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 724–731.Google Scholar
  33. Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Implicit theory measures: Reliability and validity data for adults and children. Columbia University.Google Scholar
  34. Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 107–123.Google Scholar
  35. Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(2), 308–329.Google Scholar
  36. Liu, W., Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2013). The relational antecedents of voice targeted at different leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 841–851.Google Scholar
  37. Luksyte, A., Avery, D. R., & Yeo, G. (2015). It is worse when you do it: Examining the interactive effects of coworker presenteeism and demographic similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1107–1123.Google Scholar
  38. Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2015). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206315573997.Google Scholar
  39. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593–614.Google Scholar
  40. Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.Google Scholar
  41. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 120–137.Google Scholar
  42. Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 737–747.Google Scholar
  43. Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 325–357.Google Scholar
  44. McCann, C. D., Ostrom, T. M., Tyner, L. K., & Mitchell, M. L. (1985). Person perception in heterogeneous groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1449–1459.Google Scholar
  45. Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476.Google Scholar
  46. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168.Google Scholar
  47. Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040–1055.Google Scholar
  48. Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annuals, 5, 373–412.Google Scholar
  49. Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197.Google Scholar
  50. Morrison, E. W., See, K. E., & Pan, C. (2015). An approach-inhibition model of employee silence: The joint effects of personal sense of power and target openness. Personnel Psychology, 68(3), 547–580.Google Scholar
  51. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  52. Nandkeolyar, A. K., Shaffer, J. A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S., & Bagger, J. (2014). Surviving an abusive supervisor: The joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 138–150.Google Scholar
  53. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216–234.Google Scholar
  54. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332.Google Scholar
  55. Palanski, M., Avey, J. B., & Jiraporn, N. (2014). The effects of ethical leadership and abusive supervision on job search behaviors in the turnover process. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 135–146.Google Scholar
  56. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  57. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717–731.Google Scholar
  58. Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 203–215.Google Scholar
  59. Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 713–729.Google Scholar
  60. Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 342–358.Google Scholar
  61. Schaubroeck, J., Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Mitra, A. (2008). An under-met and over-met expectations model of employee reactions to merit raises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 424–434.Google Scholar
  62. Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2016). The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 267–278.Google Scholar
  63. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356–367.Google Scholar
  64. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
  65. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.Google Scholar
  66. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.Google Scholar
  67. Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 721–732.Google Scholar
  68. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1169–1180.Google Scholar
  69. Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
  70. Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1009–1031.Google Scholar
  71. Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior–subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402–423.Google Scholar
  72. Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive activation theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29(5), 567–592.Google Scholar
  73. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.Google Scholar
  74. van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295.Google Scholar
  75. Varma, A., & Stroh, L. K. (2001). The impact of same-sex LMX dyads on performance evaluations. Human Resource Management, 40(4), 309–320.Google Scholar
  76. Vogel, R. M., Mitchell, M. S., Tepper, B. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Hu, C., Hua, W., et al. (2015). A cross-cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 720–745.Google Scholar
  77. Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2014). Does it take two to tangle? Subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 487–503.Google Scholar
  78. Wayne, J. H., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, K. M. (2001). Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 179–187.Google Scholar
  79. Weathington, B. L., Cunningham, C. J. L., & Pittenger, D. J. (2010). Research methods for the behavioral and social sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  80. Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Holmes, O. (2014). Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 38–53.Google Scholar
  81. Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477–514.Google Scholar
  82. Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763–774.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joon Hyung Park
    • 1
  • Min Z. Carter
    • 2
  • Richard S. DeFrank
    • 3
  • Qianwen Deng
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of International Business and ManagementNottingham University Business School ChinaNingboChina
  2. 2.Department of Management, College of BusinessSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management, C.T. Bauer College of BusinessUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Bank of China Ningbo BranchNingboChina

Personalised recommendations